Display Tech, Cont: Fast HDMI

Moving on from multi-monitor applications, AMD has not only been working on technologies for multi-monitor users. Southern Islands will also include some video and movie technologies that will be relevant for single and multi-monitor uses alike.

With the 6000 series AMD upgraded their DisplayPort capabilities from DP 1.1 to DP 1.2. With Southern Islands AMD will be upgrading their HDMI capabilities. Currently AMD supports a subset of the complete HDMI 1.4a specification; they can drive S3D displays (the killer feature of 1.4a), but that’s the only thing out of 1.4a they support. HDMI also introduced support for 4K x 2K displays, but both displays and devices that can drive them have been rare. As displays start to become available so too does support for them with AMD’s products.

As per the relevant specifications, both DP 1.2 and HDMI 1.4a can drive 4K x 2K displays, but with the 6000 series the hardware could only handle such a display over DP 1.2. With HDMI it was an issue of bandwidth, as HDMI is based on DVI and uses the same TMDS signaling technology. At normal speed HDMI only has as much bandwidth as single-link HDMI (~4Gbps) which is not enough to drive such a large display. DVI solved this with dual-link DVI, whereas as of HDMI 1.3 the HDMI consortium solved this by tightening their cable specifications to allow for higher clocked transmissions, from 165MHz up to 340MHz.

It’s this higher transmission speed that AMD is adding support for in Southern Islands. AMD calls this Fast HDMI technology, which as near as we can tell is not any kind of HDMI trademark but simply AMD’s branding for high speed HDMI. With Fast HDMI AMD will be able to drive 4K x 2K displays over HDMI – which looks like it will be the common connector for TVs at those high resolutions – along with being able to support 1080P S3D at higher framerates with next-generation TVs. Currently AMD’s cards and TVs alike can only handle 1080P frame packed S3D at up to 48fps (24Hz/eye), or with a bit of hacking up to 60fps (30Hz/eye), which is fine for 24fps movies but much too low for gaming. As next-generation TVs add support for 1080P frame packed S3D at 120fps (60Hz/eye) Southern Islands products will be the first AMD products able to drive them over HDMI through the use of Fast HDMI.

The only remaining questions at this point are just how high does AMD’s Fast HDMI clock (they don’t necessary have to hit 340MHz), and if AMD will add support for any other features that higher bandwidths enable. AMD says that Southern Islands supports “3GHz HDMI”, which appears to be a misnomer similar to how we commonly refer to GDDR5 by its “effective clockspeed” in GHz, even though that’s not actually how it operates. In which case with Fast HDMI AMD may be referring to the maximum throughput per channel, which at 300MHz would be 3Gbps. 300Mhz would still be enough to implement features such as Deep Color (48bpp) over most current resolutions.

Display Tech: HD3D Eyefinity, MST Hubs, & DDM Audio Video & Movies: The Video Codec Engine, UVD3, & Steady Video 2.0
Comments Locked

292 Comments

View All Comments

  • SlyNine - Friday, December 23, 2011 - link

    Not really, If Nvidia didn't handicap the CPU version of physx so bad than I'd be fine with it, But Nvidia purposely made the CPU version of phsyx worse totally gimped.
  • CeriseCogburn - Thursday, March 8, 2012 - link

    I agree, but that's the way it guy. The amd fans don't care what they and their reviewers pull, and frankly the reviewers would recieve death threats if they didn't comply with amd fanboy demands....
    So when nvidia had ambient occlusion active for several generations back in a driver add, we were suddenly screamed at that shadows in games suck.... because of course amd didn't have that feature...
    That's how the whole thing is set up - amd must be the abused underdog, nvidia must be the evil mis-implementer, until of course amd gets and actual win, or even any win even with 10% IQ performance cheat solidly in place, and any other things like failed AA, poor tessellation performance, no PhysX, etc, etc, etc...
    We just must hate nvidia for being better and of course it's all nvidia's fault as they are keeping the poor red radeon down....
    If amd radeon has " a perfectly circular algorithm " and it does absolutely nothing and even worse in all games, it is to be praised as an advantage anyway.... and that is still happening to this very day... we ignore shimmer until now, when amd 79xx has a fix for it.... etc..
    Dude, that's the way it is man....
    Nvidia is the evil, and they're keeping the radeon down...
    They throw around money too ( that's unfair as well - and evil ...)
    See?
    So just pretend anything radeon cannot do that nvidia can doesn't count and is bad, and then make certain nvidia is cut down to radeon level, IQ cheat, no PhysX, AA not turned on, Tesselation turned down, default driver hacks left in place for amd, etc....
    Then be sure to cheer when some price perf calc ignoring all the above shows a higher and or lower and card to have a few cents advantage... no free game included, no eyefinity cables... etc.
    Just dude... amd = good / nvidia=evil ...
    Cool ?
  • shin0bi272 - Thursday, December 22, 2011 - link

    Since I cant edit my comments I have to post this in a second comment instead.

    According to the released info, Nvidia’s Next Gen flagship GK-100/GK-112 chip which will feature a total f 1024 Shaders (Cuda Cores), 128 texture units (TMUs), 64 ROP’s and a 512-bit GDDR5 Memory interface. The 28nm Next Gen beast would outperform the current Dual chip Geforce GTX590 GPU.
  • shaboinkin - Thursday, December 22, 2011 - link

    Can someone tell me why GPUs tend to have much more transistors than a CPU? I never knew why.
  • Boushh - Thursday, December 22, 2011 - link

    Basically it has to do with the difference between programs (= CPU instructions) and graphics (= pixels):

    A program consists of CPU intructions, many of these instructions depend on output from the previous instruction, Therefore adding more pipelines that can work on the instructions doen't realy work.

    A picture consists of pixels, these can be processed in parrallel. So if you double the number of pipelines (= pixels you can work on at the same time), you double the performance.

    Therefore CPU's don't have that many transistors. In fact, most transistors in a CPU are in the cache memory not in the actual CPU cores. And GPU's do.

    Of course this is hust a simple explenation, the through is much much more complex ;-)
  • Boushh - Thursday, December 22, 2011 - link

    That last line should read:

    'Of course this is just a simple explanation, the reality is much much more complex'

    Reminds me to yet again vote for an EDIT button !!!! Maybe as a christmas present ? PLEASE !!!
  • shaboinkin - Thursday, December 22, 2011 - link

    Interesting...
    Do you know of a site that goes into the finer details?
  • Mishera - Wednesday, December 28, 2011 - link

    If you're looking for something to specifically answer you question the checking different tech sites. I think realworldtech addressed tis to a degree. Jon Stokes at arstechnica from what I heard wrote some pretty good articles on chip design as well. But if it's a question on chip architecture, reading some textbooks is your best bet. I asked a similar question in the forums before and got some great responses just check my posts.

    I add to what Boushh said in that for the type of information they process, it's beneficial to have more performance (and not just for graphics). That's why Amd has been pushing to integrate the gpu into the CPU. That's also to a degree show the different philosophy right now between intel and Amd in multicore computing (or the difference between Amd's new gpu architecture vs their previous one).

    What it comes down to is optimizing chip design to make use of programs, vice versa. There really is now absolute when dealing with this.
  • MrSpadge - Thursday, December 22, 2011 - link

    It's not like - as stated several times in the article - AMD is wrong about the power target of the HD7970, if they mean the PowerTune limit. Think of it as "the card is built to handle this much heat, and is guaranteed not to exceed it". That doesn't forbid drawing less power. And that's exactly what the HD6970 does: it's got the same "power target", but it uses less of its power budget than the HD7970.

    Like CPUs, whose real world power consumption is often much less than the TDP.

    MrS
  • Ryan Smith - Thursday, December 22, 2011 - link

    PowerTune is a hard cap on power consumption. Given a sufficient workload (i.e. FurMark or OCCT), you can make the card try to consume more power than it is allowed, at which point PowerTune kicks in. Or to put this another way, PowerTune doesn't kick in unless the card is at its limit.

    PowerTune kicked in for both the 6970 and 7970. In which case both cards should have be limited to 250W.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now